TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1001X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J. ) 1. These are two appeals, which have been preferred against two separate orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal'). 2. The appeals have been preferred by the Assessee, i.e., Ramco Cements Limited (formerly described as Madras Cements Limited ). 2.1. CMA No.1606 of 2017, has been preferred against the impugned judgement and order passed by the Tribunal, which is dated 10.09.2015. 2.2. In so far as CMA No.1278 of 2017 is concerned, the same has been preferred by the Assessee against the rectification order dated 22.12.2016, passed by the Tribunal. 2.3. The period in issue, with which, these appeals are concerned spans between April 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.3115, 3114 and 3116 of 2007, titled : Madras Cements Limited V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, 2015 (325) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.). 4.1. The Assessee, having obtained a favourable judgement from the Supreme Court, which according to it, also dealt with the goods in issue, i.e., steel wire, moved a rectification application before the Tribunal. 4.2. Even though, the judgement of the Supreme Court, evidently, was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it dismissed, as indicated above, the rectification application vide its order dated 22.12.2006. 4.3. It is, in these circumstances, that the Assessee has preferred the captioned appeals. 5. Mr.Rishikesh, who appears for the Assessee, makes the submission that in view of the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred to in paragraph 3(ii) and ground (ix) of the SLP. 9. The Supreme Court, while, dealing with the matter made the following observations, on which, reliance is placed by the Assessee : 4. It is pointed out by Mr.Mohan Prasaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant-Assessee, that while making these comments, the CESTAT has erred inasmuch as even as in the show cause notice issued by the Respondent-Department it was admitted that the goods are not in the nature of capital goods and these were used for construction of concrete structure and foundation on which the various heavy machineries in a cement plant was to be erected. On that basis, it is argued that the goods in question were captively used for the construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
